I must apologize for making an assumption. After reading Ben Poston’s article, I believe that he has not taken a safe traffic cycling course. Otherwise he surely would not have put himself in the position of being right-hooked.

After seeing on your blog that the Milt Olin case is finally being sent to the DA office I decided to write to the D.A. to let their office know that this kind of thing must stop taking place, sheriff or just stupid drivers.
I would encourage others to write to the D.A. as, if the sheriff’s deputy could actually be charged in this case it would show others that the L.A. D.A.’s office is getting serious about the death of cyclist in Los Angeles.
The following is my email:

Dear Sir,
I am writing in concern to the case involving the collision between a sheriff patrol car and Milton Everett Olin Jr. on the date o Dec 8, 2013.
This is a tragic event where a man following the law and riding IN a clearly marked bike lane was run down by a motor vehicle because the driver of said motor vehicle was clearly not paying attention to his driving.
Under California law I believe this is a clear case of negligent vehicular manslaughter.

I have heard that the sheriff’s department will try to defend the officer by stating that he was following policy, viewing his in car computer system. Unfortunately for the driver this is not a defense under California Vehicle Code §2890 (West 2004) because:

(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.
Because the officer was not providing emergency road service OR roadside assistance at the time.

I think that it is an unfortunate situation where the sheriff’s deputy driving the vehicle SHOULD BE CHARGED.
ALSO THE SHERIFF’S POLICY SHOULD BE CHANGED SO THAT THE IN CAR COMPUTER CAN NOT BE USED UNLESS IT IS BY A SECOND OFFICER WHO IS NOT DRIVING.

I understand that this type of a policy change could substantially effect the operating budget of the sheriff department but as it would save the lives of innocent law abiding citizens (which I believe is the job of the sheriff’s department), the change should happen.

While on the subject I would also like to quickly state that I see too many cases of cyclist being run down by automobiles in Los Angeles (and elsewhere) with NO criminal charges, and most times only small fines while cyclist are killed in the road.

Something needs to change in order to save the lives of law abiding cyclist, and I believe that this falls on the shoulders of the DA department. This is the perfect case in which the District Attorneys office of Los Angeles can show that it is serious about protecting cyclist in Los Angeles.

Please don’t fail to make a statement this time,
Thank you for your attention,
Sincerly,
—- – ——–
Los Angeles Resident

I’ve been thinking about DeSaulnier’s bike tax bill and I think I know what’s up.

He represents a district with a lot of recreational cycling and undoubtedly constant requests for more trail funding. Perhaps the county supervisors for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and city council members say they feel like they want to support cycling, but hey, we have priorities like road funding to think about.

Outside of Livermore (home of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), the bike commute share is a dismal 0.1% in his district. Everybody drives miles to work. A lot of these folks in this district have 40 to 60 mile commutes, so they too want more spending on roads and highways. So the avid cyclists in these far flung towns agree to a modest bike tax.

The only barrier is state law, so they contact their Senator and, viola, SB 1183.